Viewpoint phenomena in multimodal communication
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this introduction to the special issue on viewpoint phenomena in multimodal communication, we highlight central questions concerning the nature of multimodality and of conceptual viewpoint, which the issue as a whole expands and clarifies. We argue that multimodality needs to be rethought as a varied but cohesive phenomenon, and we briefly illustrate both embodied multimodal interaction (in an example from stand-up comedy) and the meaning emergence in artifacts relying on both text and image (in an example of a poster with an environmental message). Correspondingly, the category of multimodal constructions already recognized for embodied interactions should be expanded to cover conventionalized image/text combinations. Finally, we stress that viewpoint is the pivotal concept that elucidates how communicators use the various modalities for cohesive communicative purposes across the wide range of artifacts and multimodal forms discussed in the special issue, including gesture in political speeches, viewpoint in comics, grammatical forms in Internet memes, ASL, stance expressions, eye gaze, and embodied responses to objects and architectural artifacts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it